Here I Thought a “Youth Plot” was a storyline on a CW show, but in EUrotopia, a”Youth” has become a code-word for “Mohammedan.”

Actually, the CW metaphor works pretty well. The “youth” don’t decide to commit acts of terror on their own any more than the pretty dimbulb actors on ‘The 100’ or ‘Riverdale’ come up with their own lines. Someone else writes the script, they just follow it.

City meetings have become heated, divisive and prone to rhetoric where we openly discuss exactly which kinds of people we want to keep out of our city.

This is an ethically incoherent position. If we in San Francisco so strongly believe that national immigration is a human right, then it seems strange to block migration into our own neighborhoods.

Consider the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ decision to challenge the environmental review of a proposed housing project at 1515 Van Ness Ave. Despite the project’s plan to rent 25 percent of its units at a below-market rate, many members of the neighborhood preservation group, Calle 24, expressed anger that the project might bring tech workers into the Latino Cultural District.

Or that members of the Forest Hill homeowners association opposed a project that would build affordable housing for seniors and the formerly homeless on a site now occupied by a church. One of the grievances aired was that it might bring mentally unstable or drug-addicted people into the neighborhood.

“Tech Workers” appears to be a liberal dog-whistle for “dirty brown foreigners.” (The distaste the San Francisco left has for immigrants is so profound, it extends even to those in the country legally and contributing to the economy.)

Even more pointedly, more than a third of Silicon Valley tech workers are immigrants themselves. For many people in China, India and Eastern Europe, working in technology is one of the few ways out of their countries and into ours.

* Note, my use of “dirty brown foreigners” is intended as irony and sarcasm. I shouldn’t have to point that out, but many leftists are humorless and stupid.

At one point George W. Bush maintained that he had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein of Iraq even though that country had not had any dangerous unconventional weapons. The reason? Saddam Hussein, he said, was “evil.”

The “evilness” of an opponent of US policy is metaphysical, and can be used to justify almost anything.

Back in 1953, Iran had a nationalist prime minister who wanted a fair share from BP of the money from sale of Iran’s own oil. His name, Mohammad Mosaddegh, showed his aristocratic lineage. The Eisenhower administration and the compliant Washington press corps waged a campaign of personal vilification against Mosaddegh, hinting around that he was a communist and a puppet of the Soviet Union. This was an aristocratic nationalist!

Demonizing Mosaddegh was a prelude to the CIA buying a crowd and overthrowing the elected prime minister of a major parliamentary country. It has never to this day recovered its democracy.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was also demonized.

So was Yasser Arafat. Salvador Allende of Chile.

Whenever the US intelligence agencies collaborate with mass media to throw up on the screen the face of a foreign leader, giving him devil’s horns and making his face red with the flames of hell, we have to take that depiction as a sign that they intend to do something to that country.

Not that I agree with his characterizations; but it is rather interesting to see this Conspiracy Theory from a left-winger’s point-of-view. I give him credit, at least, for being consistent. Unlike the Democrats who were insisting two months ago that to suggest an election was rigged, and to dispute its outcome, was treasonous crazy talk.